[The-Lacanalyst] The-lacanalyst Digest, Vol 3, Issue 6

Wed Nov 26 22:21:06 UTC 2025

Item for clarification:

I have been involved in this very conversation (legality of
non-psychoanalysis in the US) with Jacques Siboni (and I think 100 others)
over a span of approx 10 years in the early 2000s; hence my comment
regarding not being interested in wanting to be involved in it again.
Meaning,that I am simply finding myself in the wrong place at the wrong
time here.

I have submitted my request to be unsubscribed from this further
conversation on the bot website, but I am not sure if this will work.

To calm everybody: I do not identify myself as a "psychoanalyst" to
anybody... LOL... nor do I claim any knowledge of it... "girls just want to
have fun"!

I wish all of you all the best. Let's check in another decade.

Peace everyone!
Kristopher

On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 1:31 PM Aria Lotfalian <arialotfalian at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Folks,
>
> I would simply like to put forward a few reminders/notes of observation:
>
> (1) If I am not mistaken, the question of the legal situation of the title
> of ‘analyst’ and ‘psychoanalysis’ in the US was initially put forward for
> discussion by Jacques Siboni. It would seem that he considered this
> question important enough to broach (apparently contrary to Kristopher’s
> opinion). And, indeed, I do believe he was right in considering it
> important because it afforded me, and perhaps others, the opportunity to
> get clear on two points:
>         (a) to become familiar with the legal situation and system in
> operation across the states of the US (in contrast to other countries),
>         (b) to become aware of a certain fear/anxiety that serves the
> function of an alibi for dealing with what truly poses an obstacle to the
> practice of psychoanalysis (to the extent, that is, that it continues to be
> insufficiently distinguished from a mental health service or treatment).
> This is the main point I take from Robert’s intervention.
>
> (2) If I am not mistaken, Jacques and Robert are in complete agreement
> that psychoanalysis is not part of the economy of goods/services but rather
> that of truth/desire. Part of this recognition implies, it seems to me,
> that anyone who claims to work at analysis should fight tooth and nail to
> distinguish psychoanalysis (in public) from this reduction. Anyone who is
> not alarmed at the complacency that allows psychoanalysis to slip under the
> heading of service/treatment, in my view, has insufficiently grasped the
> implications of the emergence of the discourse of analysis (insofar as
> Lacan allows us to clarify its foundations). It is therefore not a useless
> question to ask: should we not see in the fear that drives people into
> licensure, not simply a reflection of the reality of a legal situation, but
> a symptom of the failure to come to term with the foundations of the
> discourse of analysis?
>
> And to be clear, I have no problem with those who have obtained a license.
> This not a question of putting anyone personally on the spot. But I do
> maintain that it is important, as a matter of foundation and not just
> pragmatics, that one not introduce psychoanalysis into public in such a way
> that it could be captured or controlled through the legal issue of
> licensure.
>
> Thank you,
> Aria
>
> > On Nov 26, 2025, at 11:12 AM, the-lacanalyst-request at lutecium.org wrote:
> >
> > Send The-lacanalyst mailing list submissions to
> >       the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >       https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >       the-lacanalyst-request at lutecium.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> >       the-lacanalyst-owner at lutecium.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of The-lacanalyst digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >   1. Re: As a temporary conclusion (Tate)
> >   2. Re: As a temporary conclusion (Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 10:59:23 -0800
> > From: Tate <tate at netwood.net>
> > To: Discussion list for The Lacanalyst <the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org>
> > Subject: Re: [The-Lacanalyst] As a temporary conclusion
> > Message-ID: <AAB4E787-E146-428B-8E62-32533F50FFB1 at netwood.net>
> > Content-Type: text/plain;     charset=utf-8
> >
> > Dear Christopher,
> >
> > It sounds like you are misoriented in what I stated in my last missive.
> Perhaps I was not clear. Let me rephrase things.
> >
> > There is nobody at PLACE who offers psychoanalysis to the public,
> licensed or non-licensed, in fact, people all across the U.S. use the title
> of psychoanalyst to practice psychoanalysis with others without any license
> or any
> > offer or demand. For example, there are professors who teach analysis in
> US universities and hold reading groups, are they under the jurisdiction of
> the Behavioral Board of Psychology? I do not think so, but they call
> themselves psychoanalysts. A group of people who get together to practice
> analysis in an educational setting ? not therapeutic ? are they offering
> psychoanlaysis analysis to others? I do not think so, and this is what I
> hear as being your fundamental disorientation. Such people are practicing
> psychoanalysis, but the difference with what you are implying, forgive me
> if this is not so, is that such people are either practicing analysis on
> people or they are attempting to diagnose people or ?offer? services. Is
> that what you think a psychoanalyst does or who what defines their title?
> If so, I think this is a very limited notion of how to isolate the
> psychoanalytic act.
> >
> > In fact, everyone working in such a situation like PLACE or other
> associations, or a Lacanian reading group, or a university course, etc. is
> really working as an analysand. Sure there are a few professors who may
> want to be entitled psychoanalyst, but I think this is even too much. It is
> much more important, if one is trying to establish a position, to become an
> analysand, not an analyst! There is nobody at PLACE going around calling
> themself an analyst or trying to diagnose others or interpret their dreams.
> And for good reason, the analyst is only an effect, and not a professional
> status. I do agree, with you, however, if someone would pose themself as a
> psychoanalyst offering services to others, not only would they not be
> working through PLACE ? who only supports analysands ? but they would not
> be doing analysis. At least, in the manner of Lacan (the short session is
> precisely about this).
> >
> > In any case, I hope this short response will clarify things for you. To
> be clear: if someone were trying to offer psychoanalysis as a service that
> diagnoses and treats other people, then they would be liable by the
> jurisdiction in valor in the state of CA. But that is not the only modality
> or, as far many are concerned, the best way to bring psychoanalysis into
> the public.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Scully Robert
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Nov 26, 2025, at 10:27?AM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via
> The-lacanalyst <the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> I'm back from travels, but still dealing with Centurylink
> internet/broadband issues.
> >> Hm...
> >>
> >> I disagree, Scully. It will take one anonymous phone call to the Board
> of Psychology in California stating that psychoanalysis is being offered to
> the public by non-licensed people at PLACE and you will be investigated by
> the state and potentially sued for providing mental health services
> (psychoanalysis - which is how it is defined in California statutes)
> without being licensed to do so in CA State. I am not predicting the
> outcome... Perhaps even nothing comes of it... but trust me... chances are
> you will not enjoy yourself for some  months... and you will dish out on a
> lawyer... (I do notrecommend defending yourself... US judges hate that and
> they have a lot of power regarding their decisions.... they have a
> completely free range to decide the outcome).
> >>
> >> As I have stated before, I don't care what risks people take to do
> whatever they want in life, but I completely disagree with the statement
> that absence of a license requirement means a legal permission to practice.
> I also don't see much point arguing about it. I do have a license, so this
> particular item is not relevant to me at all and I don't need anybody to
> convince me about it at all. Please do with yourselves as you wish.
> >>
> >> Note for Jacques: There is no national level licensing for anything
> here. Each state regulates and licenses their own professionals, so
> whenever you compare France to the US, be aware that you are speaking about
> 50 different sets of statues, laws, and regulations (not just one). Please
> also clearly differentiate between criminal law and lawsuits and civil
> lawsuits (which can be filed by anybody for any reason, and you can't just
> ignore it...) in the US. I can hold you in court proceedings for years...
> years... if I have a good reason to be pissed at you and I have enough
> money to pay a lawyer to keep pushing you to the brink of financial ruin
> (so you agree to what I and my lawyer wants).
> >>
> >> We (US) are a case-based law, once a case is decided in court, it is
> from that point on considered a law... so once CA State said (in a case as
> adjudicated by a CA judge) that practicing psychoanalysis means practicing
> mental health for which a state license is required, it will be considered
> when someone takes you to court for practicing psychoanalysis without a
> license to do so.
> >>
> >> One thing for sure: someone has to be a complainant. So - if you know
> what you are doing and why, and with whom... nobody complains, nobody gets
> sued... but it takes one anonymous phone call to send CA State your way for
> some truly unexpected fun... and the argument put forth here so far would -
> most likely - not fly, but... I am not a lawyer, so please... talk to
> lawyers about it, not psychoanalysts.
> >>
> >> Otherwise - indeed  - psychoanalysis is impossible anywhere, so what
> are we actually getting together to talk about... how impossible it is to
> do what we are not doing? Sounds like a good topic to me. The impossibility
> of nothing(ness).
> >>
> >> Happy (US) Thanksgiving! Gotta go hunt for a wild turkey...
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 9:53?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst <
> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
> >> Dearest Jacques and Folks,
> >>
> >> In your last emails, there is always a looming question of risk. I will
> respond to your
> >> question on the risk of working analytically in the US. I then have a
> question of my
> >> own about the risk of working analytically in France that I hope you
> will respond to.
> >>
> >> But first, in response to the following:
> >>
> >>> If you confirm this approach is possible in the USA without the major
> danger of
> >>> being sued by IPA or any other Health dept, for me it is good to hear
> this. And
> >>> Therefore the use of the concept of lacanalyst is useless. If you
> confirm
> >>> that someone with no specific diploma can put a plaque on his door
> mentioning
> >>> "Psychoanalysis" in California and can receive public and won't have
> >>> legal problems that's fine and great for me.
> >>>
> >>> This is not what I heard when I talked to Aviva, Kris or John. That's
> the reason
> >>> why I tried to invent a counter measure.
> >>
> >> I can confirm that in the US, anywhere but New York (and maybe Mass.),
> there is no law
> >> restricting the use of the title psychoanalyst and you need no license
> to practice. The proof of the pudding is
> >> you will find at PLACE people working as analysts who have no diploma,
> no license, and not sued (if that is your
> >> worry), for the last 20 years. Some of them, besides myself, were even
> present at the time before last
> >> meeting on Zoom. The problem of working legally with the prevailing
> laws in CA was resolved a long time ago, at
> >> least for those working at PLACE. This is not the problem today.
> >>
> >> I am not saying some people will not have problems actually
> establishing an analytic practice ? this impossibility
> >> is intrinsic whether you are in France or the US ? in fact, some people
> have so many problems that all that
> >> they can think of doing is to get a psychology degree, or some kind of
> therapy degree, or a psychiatry degree,
> >> then try to improvise something around that. Unfortunately, if this
> professional basis is used as the standard for
> >> an entry to the US public, then such entries are themselves phobic, and
> it is no surprise that people would
> >> be scared. But I do not think they should be scared of being sued, I
> think the problem is much worse: they
> >> should be scared of the s?autotorize which I described in my last
> missive. I think R. Bauknight is just one
> >> warning among others of what not to do in this manner when trying to
> enter into a psychoanalytic discourse:
> >> no doubt, she had a psychoanalytic transfer and threw great parties,
> but was there any analysis? In the end,
> >> there are people who work at PLACE who do have psychology degrees and
> the rest, but it just takes a little
> >> more time to work and show what is at stake to get beyond the crazy and
> fears.
> >>
> >> In the end, Jacques, for me and others, since  the questions that are
> being asked about the Laws in the US have
> >> been resolved, I would ask today not how to game the US system, but how
> to establish fundamentally that
> >> one is, or has, ever worked as an analyst in the first place? If it is
> only the s?autotortize that is appealed to here, then, again, there
> >> is more than a risk of being sued, there is the risk of crazy (knowing
> full well that analysis is part of its own clinic).
> >>
> >> So, if you will permit my question to you Jacques. We know that Lacan
> started a ?Section Clinique? in France
> >> whose intention was to make room for the entry of psychoanalysis into
> psychiatry in France. But in fact, we know just the
> >> opposite happened: psychiatry entered into psychoanalysis and never
> left (even though Lacan disbanded the school and the clinic).
> >>
> >> Today, we find, and I have been told by many that the problem of
> practicing Lacanian analysis  in France is that the two Apostles,
> >> Melman and Miller, have maintained a professionalization and
> psychiatrization of analysis that holds its participants captive in a
> Lacanian Ghetto,
> >> with little or no work of consequence. That is why I left and it is why
> Vappereau also left.
> >>
> >> So this is my question to you: do you agree that the psychiatrization
> of Lacanian analysis in France has
> >> made it impossible to work at analysis in France?
> >>
> >> I would be relieved if you could answer this question.
> >>
> >> Best to you and friends,
> >>
> >> ScullyRobert
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Nov 26, 2025, at 3:32?AM, Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst <
> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear friend
> >>>
> >>> To give a kind of temporary conclusion, I'll just advance my personal
> vision.
> >>> When I work as psychoanalyst I would not accept that any health
> department ask
> >>> me to produce a diploma or license to prove I have the right to
> practice analysis.
> >>>
> >>> Of course as long as a patient puts forward this license demand to me,
> I consider he is
> >>> legitimate to do so, but on the way I direct the cure he is in the
> process of
> >>> preliminary sessions and not actual analysis.
> >>>
> >>> If you confirm this approach is possible in the USA without the major
> danger of
> >>> being sued by IPA or any other Health dept, for me it is good to hear
> this. And
> >>> Therefore the use of the concept of lacanalyst is useless. If you
> confirm
> >>> that someone with no specific diploma can put a plaque on his door
> mentioning
> >>> "Psychoanalysis" in California and can receive public and won't have
> >>> legal problems that's fine and great for me.
> >>>
> >>> This is not what I heard when I talked to Aviva, Kris or John. That's
> the reason
> >>> why I tried to invent a counter measure.
> >>>
> >>> All the best my friend
> >>>
> >>> Jacques
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> The-lacanalyst mailing list
> >>> The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org
> >>> https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
> >>
> >> --
> >> The-lacanalyst mailing list
> >> The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org
> >> https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA
> >> Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.
> >> Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC
> >> 1.206.451.7020
> >> --
> >> The-lacanalyst mailing list
> >> The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org
> >> https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 11:11:48 -0800
> > From: "Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA"
> >       <kristopher at serendipityhealingarts.com>
> > To: Discussion list for The Lacanalyst <the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org>
> > Cc: Tate <tate at netwood.net>
> > Subject: Re: [The-Lacanalyst] As a temporary conclusion
> > Message-ID:
> >       <
> CAMrMr7CNOXkDTUdhq-692PnxdpkMUneG4HoBq4DR4Wyjg-uv0w at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > OK... Thank you for your clarification, Scully. I already have access to
> > university psychoanalysts working with literary text and so, please
> remove
> > me from these listserves.
> >
> > For someone who claims so much knowledge of how to practice
> psychoanalysis
> > in the US without a license, Scully, I most certainly misunderstood your
> > statements (especially about what is going on at PLACE).  So  -  with
> this
> > new clarification and to avoid further misunderstandings  - I wish all of
> > you farewell.
> >
> > There are a few lacanians in Vancouver, BC I like to keep talking with
> > instead of returning to this nonsense of "plaques on doors..." I am no
> > longer in San Francisco and it is no longer 2010 - which is when this
> topic
> > has ended.
> >
> > I hope there is a viable seminar offered one day that I could join (I'll
> > keep an eye on that)... until then...
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Kris
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 11:00?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst <
> > the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Christopher,
> >>
> >> It sounds like you are misoriented in what I stated in my last missive.
> >> Perhaps I was not clear. Let me rephrase things.
> >>
> >> There is nobody at PLACE who offers psychoanalysis to the public,
> licensed
> >> or non-licensed, in fact, people all across the U.S. use the title of
> >> psychoanalyst to practice psychoanalysis with others without any
> license or
> >> any
> >> offer or demand. For example, there are professors who teach analysis in
> >> US universities and hold reading groups, are they under the
> jurisdiction of
> >> the Behavioral Board of Psychology? I do not think so, but they call
> >> themselves psychoanalysts. A group of people who get together to
> practice
> >> analysis in an educational setting ? not therapeutic ? are they offering
> >> psychoanlaysis analysis to others? I do not think so, and this is what I
> >> hear as being your fundamental disorientation. Such people are
> practicing
> >> psychoanalysis, but the difference with what you are implying, forgive
> me
> >> if this is not so, is that such people are either practicing analysis on
> >> people or they are attempting to diagnose people or ?offer? services. Is
> >> that what you think a psychoanalyst does or who what defines their
> title?
> >> If so, I think this is a very limited notion of how to isolate the
> >> psychoanalytic act.
> >>
> >> In fact, everyone working in such a situation like PLACE or other
> >> associations, or a Lacanian reading group, or a university course, etc.
> is
> >> really working as an analysand. Sure there are a few professors who may
> >> want to be entitled psychoanalyst, but I think this is even too much.
> It is
> >> much more important, if one is trying to establish a position, to
> become an
> >> analysand, not an analyst! There is nobody at PLACE going around calling
> >> themself an analyst or trying to diagnose others or interpret their
> dreams.
> >> And for good reason, the analyst is only an effect, and not a
> professional
> >> status. I do agree, with you, however, if someone would pose themself
> as a
> >> psychoanalyst offering services to others, not only would they not be
> >> working through PLACE ? who only supports analysands ? but they would
> not
> >> be doing analysis. At least, in the manner of Lacan (the short session
> is
> >> precisely about this).
> >>
> >> In any case, I hope this short response will clarify things for you. To
> be
> >> clear: if someone were trying to offer psychoanalysis as a service that
> >> diagnoses and treats other people, then they would be liable by the
> >> jurisdiction in valor in the state of CA. But that is not the only
> modality
> >> or, as far many are concerned, the best way to bring psychoanalysis into
> >> the public.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Scully Robert
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Nov 26, 2025, at 10:27?AM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via
> >> The-lacanalyst <the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi everyone,
> >>>
> >>> I'm back from travels, but still dealing with Centurylink
> >> internet/broadband issues.
> >>> Hm...
> >>>
> >>> I disagree, Scully. It will take one anonymous phone call to the Board
> >> of Psychology in California stating that psychoanalysis is being
> offered to
> >> the public by non-licensed people at PLACE and you will be investigated
> by
> >> the state and potentially sued for providing mental health services
> >> (psychoanalysis - which is how it is defined in California statutes)
> >> without being licensed to do so in CA State. I am not predicting the
> >> outcome... Perhaps even nothing comes of it... but trust me... chances
> are
> >> you will not enjoy yourself for some  months... and you will dish out
> on a
> >> lawyer... (I do notrecommend defending yourself... US judges hate that
> and
> >> they have a lot of power regarding their decisions.... they have a
> >> completely free range to decide the outcome).
> >>>
> >>> As I have stated before, I don't care what risks people take to do
> >> whatever they want in life, but I completely disagree with the statement
> >> that absence of a license requirement means a legal permission to
> practice.
> >> I also don't see much point arguing about it. I do have a license, so
> this
> >> particular item is not relevant to me at all and I don't need anybody to
> >> convince me about it at all. Please do with yourselves as you wish.
> >>>
> >>> Note for Jacques: There is no national level licensing for anything
> >> here. Each state regulates and licenses their own professionals, so
> >> whenever you compare France to the US, be aware that you are speaking
> about
> >> 50 different sets of statues, laws, and regulations (not just one).
> Please
> >> also clearly differentiate between criminal law and lawsuits and civil
> >> lawsuits (which can be filed by anybody for any reason, and you can't
> just
> >> ignore it...) in the US. I can hold you in court proceedings for
> years...
> >> years... if I have a good reason to be pissed at you and I have enough
> >> money to pay a lawyer to keep pushing you to the brink of financial ruin
> >> (so you agree to what I and my lawyer wants).
> >>>
> >>> We (US) are a case-based law, once a case is decided in court, it is
> >> from that point on considered a law... so once CA State said (in a case
> as
> >> adjudicated by a CA judge) that practicing psychoanalysis means
> practicing
> >> mental health for which a state license is required, it will be
> considered
> >> when someone takes you to court for practicing psychoanalysis without a
> >> license to do so.
> >>>
> >>> One thing for sure: someone has to be a complainant. So - if you know
> >> what you are doing and why, and with whom... nobody complains, nobody
> gets
> >> sued... but it takes one anonymous phone call to send CA State your way
> for
> >> some truly unexpected fun... and the argument put forth here so far
> would -
> >> most likely - not fly, but... I am not a lawyer, so please... talk to
> >> lawyers about it, not psychoanalysts.
> >>>
> >>> Otherwise - indeed  - psychoanalysis is impossible anywhere, so what
> are
> >> we actually getting together to talk about... how impossible it is to do
> >> what we are not doing? Sounds like a good topic to me. The
> impossibility of
> >> nothing(ness).
> >>>
> >>> Happy (US) Thanksgiving! Gotta go hunt for a wild turkey...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 9:53?AM Tate via The-lacanalyst <
> >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
> >>> Dearest Jacques and Folks,
> >>>
> >>> In your last emails, there is always a looming question of risk. I will
> >> respond to your
> >>> question on the risk of working analytically in the US. I then have a
> >> question of my
> >>> own about the risk of working analytically in France that I hope you
> >> will respond to.
> >>>
> >>> But first, in response to the following:
> >>>
> >>>> If you confirm this approach is possible in the USA without the major
> >> danger of
> >>>> being sued by IPA or any other Health dept, for me it is good to hear
> >> this. And
> >>>> Therefore the use of the concept of lacanalyst is useless. If you
> >> confirm
> >>>> that someone with no specific diploma can put a plaque on his door
> >> mentioning
> >>>> "Psychoanalysis" in California and can receive public and won't have
> >>>> legal problems that's fine and great for me.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is not what I heard when I talked to Aviva, Kris or John. That's
> >> the reason
> >>>> why I tried to invent a counter measure.
> >>>
> >>> I can confirm that in the US, anywhere but New York (and maybe Mass.),
> >> there is no law
> >>> restricting the use of the title psychoanalyst and you need no license
> >> to practice. The proof of the pudding is
> >>> you will find at PLACE people working as analysts who have no diploma,
> >> no license, and not sued (if that is your
> >>> worry), for the last 20 years. Some of them, besides myself, were even
> >> present at the time before last
> >>> meeting on Zoom. The problem of working legally with the prevailing
> laws
> >> in CA was resolved a long time ago, at
> >>> least for those working at PLACE. This is not the problem today.
> >>>
> >>> I am not saying some people will not have problems actually
> establishing
> >> an analytic practice ? this impossibility
> >>> is intrinsic whether you are in France or the US ? in fact, some people
> >> have so many problems that all that
> >>> they can think of doing is to get a psychology degree, or some kind of
> >> therapy degree, or a psychiatry degree,
> >>> then try to improvise something around that. Unfortunately, if this
> >> professional basis is used as the standard for
> >>> an entry to the US public, then such entries are themselves phobic, and
> >> it is no surprise that people would
> >>> be scared. But I do not think they should be scared of being sued, I
> >> think the problem is much worse: they
> >>> should be scared of the s?autotorize which I described in my last
> >> missive. I think R. Bauknight is just one
> >>> warning among others of what not to do in this manner when trying to
> >> enter into a psychoanalytic discourse:
> >>> no doubt, she had a psychoanalytic transfer and threw great parties,
> but
> >> was there any analysis? In the end,
> >>> there are people who work at PLACE who do have psychology degrees and
> >> the rest, but it just takes a little
> >>> more time to work and show what is at stake to get beyond the crazy and
> >> fears.
> >>>
> >>> In the end, Jacques, for me and others, since  the questions that are
> >> being asked about the Laws in the US have
> >>> been resolved, I would ask today not how to game the US system, but how
> >> to establish fundamentally that
> >>> one is, or has, ever worked as an analyst in the first place? If it is
> >> only the s?autotortize that is appealed to here, then, again, there
> >>> is more than a risk of being sued, there is the risk of crazy (knowing
> >> full well that analysis is part of its own clinic).
> >>>
> >>> So, if you will permit my question to you Jacques. We know that Lacan
> >> started a ?Section Clinique? in France
> >>> whose intention was to make room for the entry of psychoanalysis into
> >> psychiatry in France. But in fact, we know just the
> >>> opposite happened: psychiatry entered into psychoanalysis and never
> left
> >> (even though Lacan disbanded the school and the clinic).
> >>>
> >>> Today, we find, and I have been told by many that the problem of
> >> practicing Lacanian analysis  in France is that the two Apostles,
> >>> Melman and Miller, have maintained a professionalization and
> >> psychiatrization of analysis that holds its participants captive in a
> >> Lacanian Ghetto,
> >>> with little or no work of consequence. That is why I left and it is why
> >> Vappereau also left.
> >>>
> >>> So this is my question to you: do you agree that the psychiatrization
> of
> >> Lacanian analysis in France has
> >>> made it impossible to work at analysis in France?
> >>>
> >>> I would be relieved if you could answer this question.
> >>>
> >>> Best to you and friends,
> >>>
> >>> ScullyRobert
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Nov 26, 2025, at 3:32?AM, Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst <
> >> the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear friend
> >>>>
> >>>> To give a kind of temporary conclusion, I'll just advance my personal
> >> vision.
> >>>> When I work as psychoanalyst I would not accept that any health
> >> department ask
> >>>> me to produce a diploma or license to prove I have the right to
> >> practice analysis.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course as long as a patient puts forward this license demand to me,
> >> I consider he is
> >>>> legitimate to do so, but on the way I direct the cure he is in the
> >> process of
> >>>> preliminary sessions and not actual analysis.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you confirm this approach is possible in the USA without the major
> >> danger of
> >>>> being sued by IPA or any other Health dept, for me it is good to hear
> >> this. And
> >>>> Therefore the use of the concept of lacanalyst is useless. If you
> >> confirm
> >>>> that someone with no specific diploma can put a plaque on his door
> >> mentioning
> >>>> "Psychoanalysis" in California and can receive public and won't have
> >>>> legal problems that's fine and great for me.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is not what I heard when I talked to Aviva, Kris or John. That's
> >> the reason
> >>>> why I tried to invent a counter measure.
> >>>>
> >>>> All the best my friend
> >>>>
> >>>> Jacques
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> The-lacanalyst mailing list
> >>>> The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org
> >>>> https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> The-lacanalyst mailing list
> >>> The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org
> >>> https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA
> >>> Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.
> >>> Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC
> >>> 1.206.451.7020
> >>> --
> >>> The-lacanalyst mailing list
> >>> The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org
> >>> https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> The-lacanalyst mailing list
> >> The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org
> >> https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA
> > *Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.*
> > Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC
> > <https://www.serendipityhealingarts.com>
> > 1.206.451.7020
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> http://lutecium.org/pipermail/the-lacanalyst/attachments/20251126/065e963d/attachment.htm
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Subject: Digest Footer
> >
> > The-lacanalyst mailing list
> > The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org
> > https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > End of The-lacanalyst Digest, Vol 3, Issue 6
> > ********************************************
>
>
> --
> The-lacanalyst mailing list
> The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org
> https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
>

-- 
Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA
*Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.*
Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC
<https://www.serendipityhealingarts.com>
1.206.451.7020
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lutecium.org/pipermail/the-lacanalyst/attachments/20251126/d759bd30/attachment-0002.htm>